I define a back as inside the tackles and off the line. A receiver outside the tackles and off the line is the responsibility of the wings. I don't want wings looking into the backfield, prior to or after the snap. Wings have the following responsibilities: "snap-tackle-end" which means look for action prior to the snap, read the tackle for pass/run and look for the block on the end to make sure it is clean. Then, they either go downfield for a pass situation or stay home and watch blockers in front of the ball as the play comes to them.

Bob, I think the "inconsistency" is built into the rules. Linemen have restrictions that backs do not have. Since there are different rules on what A players may do based on their position, there will be different treatment. I don't think it's incosistancy so much as judgement. If a lineman lifts up, by rule it's a false start. If a back lifts up, it's a judgement call as to whether it's a false start or not.

Unless your state or area uses a completely different set of keys, that is not true. A wing's key might be the back between the tackles.

Then, they either go downfield for a pass situation or stay home and watch blockers in front of the ball as the play comes to them.

The wings also have short passes in the flat. They do not go running reckless abandon down field on every pass. Usually the running backs are going to the short flat for passes. You will have to pick them up to know where they are. And their movement before the snap is key. Now if they are not looking at them, they might miss a play that involves them. Wings also have some responsibility for the forward/backward pass coverage.

We are not going to agree on this. Unless your state has completely different mechanics, nothing you are saying about keys and coverage area that is true.

Peace

REPLY: I'll definitely agree that interior linemen locked into a 3/4-point stance have more restrictions on them in that they can't lift out of that stance no matter how slowly or smoothly they do it, whereas an end or a back can do so. But when a player jumps because he obviously missed the snap count and that jump simulates the start of a play, he has committed a false start regardless of position. There is no ambiguity in the rules on that...at least not as I read them. Is there judgment involved? Of course there is, but not a whole lot for a player that flinches or jumps simply because he missed the count.

Sometimes they flinch because they were supposed to move and go into motion. This is why I personally like to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Peace

You are giving the Offense a huge advantage. If he doesn't know the play, then why would you bail him out. It's not our job to give the benefit of the doubt.

How are you giving the offense and advantage? The offense could throw an interception (with all that confusion) or make another mistake. You still can have a penalty; it is just a matter of which penalty you are going to call.

Let me say this, I have taken this philosophy with me for years and I have never had anyone really make a big deal out of it. Also we give the benefit of the doubt on a lot of plays to not award cheap penalties or to not award points that might not be earned.

Once again, if it works for you do it. I am just not a mind reader to know when and why players always move. This is why this is a judgment call no matter how many ways we dissect it.

Peace

That's why they have PRACTICE! PRACTICE?? To get the plays right. If he doesn't know the plays, he shoulddn't be in there.

I'm not giving the offense a huge advantage - the offense already has that huge advantage given to it by the rules. It can move all sorts of people in different directions and start and stop their movements.

A back is allowed to move and then reset as long as he does commit a false start, it isn't illegal motion or an illegal shift. Whether his movement is a false start or not is a judgment call. As you can see from this discussion there is a lot of disagreement on this and there has been as long as I've been officiating.

I don't think you can claim one view is right and the other is wrong in this type of play. Sometimes it's a FS and sometimes it isn't.

What does any of that have to do with the rule? A player not knowing a play is not a penalty. If the rules committee wants a penalty for all offensive movements, then they will outlaw it by rule. Until that time, there is some judgment, experience, common sense and philosophy that are going to apply. That is not going to change because you disagree with me on this. Judgment is after all why we get paid the big bucks.

Peace

JimD & JRutledge,

I understand what you guys are saying. Maybe its the wording I dont agree with. Yes, FS is a judgement call. BIG BUCKS!!! I'm in the wrong state. ha ha!!